LETTERS: Explaining Pa. fair tax law

The Fair Tax Act, S122/HR25, proposes a tax on all new merchandise and services in place of the income taxes, payroll taxes, corporation taxes, and taxes on dividends. Critics of the Act, whom propose a 23 percent inclusive tax, have confused the issue by saying that this law is in reality a 30 percent tax. The following explanation will clear any misinformation.

The 23 percent tax is included in the stated price of each item or service. For $100 item, $23 of it is taxes with the remaining $77 paying for the item. Following this logic, stating you are in the 25 percent tax bracket, $25 is taxes and the item is $75. Now, the magic with percentages of numbers comes into play. For the Fair Tax proposal, if one divides $23 by $77, the resulting answer is a 30 percent tax. The income tax rate by this same method is $25 divided by $75 resulting in a 33 percent tax. Adding in the other taxes, $7.65 payroll and Social Security, one pays $32.65 in taxes and $67.35 for the item, which is really a 48.5 percent tax. Therefore, the 30 percent Fair Tax rate is better than the present methodology.

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul filibustered seeking assurances from the White House that it would not target American citizens on U.S. soil. Al-Qaida terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki’s teen son, Abdulrahman, an American citizen, was killed by a Hellfire missile fired from U.S. drone while he was sitting in a café in Yemen. There has been no allegation that the teen has joined al-Qaida, was a terrorist, was an “imminent threat,” or was even in a war zone in Yemen. A White House spokesman justified the killing (murder) by saying that the teen could have had a “better father.”

Last week, in response to Sen. Paul’s inquiry, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said that he thought there could be “extraordinary circumstances” in which the president would be authorized to use lethal force against Americans on U.S. soil. When pressed six times by Sen. Ted Cruz to clarify his statement, Holder repeatedly equivocated on the answer. It would be “inappropriate,” but would not say it was “unconstitutional.”

Let’s see. Allowing political opponents to be called “terrorist,” assassinating a teen who “might be” a terrorist, then saying it might be OK to kill a likewise suspected terrorist on U.S. soil — all before being nailed to the wall and finally being filibustered to force a clarification. Part of this administration’s bizarre behavior